The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image.

	Lolicon has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 14, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept December 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 3, 2010 Articles for deletion Speedily kept February 15, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted March 12, 2011 Good article reassessment Not listed October 13, 2021 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga: Hentai GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hentai work group. Pornography GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles Women GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

I am a native Japanese speaker and this article, though well-cited, repeatedly claims that lolicon is a term used only for attraction to fictional characters, when in vernacular Japanese it is used to describe pedophiles (i.e. adults attracted to real life children) as well. How should this be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusyeeter (talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the headline says, I want to provide an overview specifically about the genre itself, citing various entertainment media as sources such as Manga and visual novels. the things I want to include are more about the fundamentals and motives behind lolicon stories as well as some unique tropes and themes to the genre such as erotisised nostalgia or stranger danger among other things. Maybe even include a brief mini section overview of unique character archetypes such as the lolibaba (aka the old/1000yo loli).

Perhaps in doing so, the article could be re-elected to join the arts and literature section.

here's what I (attempted) attempted to edit in (in bold, before being update locked from posting)

According to Kaoru Nagayama, manga readers define lolicon works as those "with a heroine younger than a middleschool student", a definition which can vary from characters under age 18 for "society at large", to characters "younger than gradeschool-aged" for "fanatics", and to "kindergarteners" for "more pedophiliac readers". Elisabeth Klar observes that girl characters in lolicon can show an "contradictory performance of age" in which their body, behavior, and role in a story conflict; an example is the Lolibaba ("little girl, old woman") archetype, a character who, despite having the un-aging youthful body of a little girl regardless of how old she actually is, speaks or acts with the mannerisms of either an aged woman, with a sense of childishness or both. Curvy hips and other secondary sex characteristics similarly appear as features in some of the genre's characters. Plot devices often explain the young appearance of characters who are non-human or actually much older.

But alas, it keeps getting reverted.

I know this to be true because it's all over Japanese fiction, and is regularly brought up in ero-manga and anime. There's even dedicated anthology magazines like Towako [永遠娘] which exclusively feature short H-stories with girls who fit the trope and the personalities of the girls (from what gets fan-translated) vary quite a lot within the range I mentioned in bold. (See series being sold below) https://www.dlsite.com/books/fsr/=/keyword_work_name/%22%E6%B0%B8%E9%81%A0%E5%A8%98%22+TITLE00002658/order/title_d/from/work.titles

I even included the following link as citation, which is the closest I can find with the definition in mind due to how much google censors lolicon sources.

https://honeysanime.com/what-is-loli-baba-definition-meaning/

Surely I'm not far from the tree, am I?

"Young girls" can imply someone in their 20's. Lolicon is specifically art of prepubescent girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linux rules, Windows drools (talk • contribs) 05:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I put in my edit summary, in the 1980s, "lolicon" could mean older teens (and per the Nagayama source, to some people in Japan even today, "lolicon" could still mean that), so changing it might be unwise. Also, I think anybody referring to adult women in their 20s as "young girls" is being rather patronizing and sexist; it is not the usual or assumed usage in contemporary English to use "young girls" to refer to people in their 20s. (Young women? sure. But "young girls"? No.) Sandtalon (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to add to the argument above that the legal definition of age varies around the world. An ongoing issue for organizations such as ICMEC has been the legal age definition of a "child" in various countries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lolicon is art about unrealistic characters. We see this reflected in Sato's views that Lolicon do not have an attraction to or interest in living children. This difference manifests itself in the way the characters are designed, leading to their actual shape being different. I think an uninformed reader would get the wrong idea if such phrasing is used. 162.40.224.204 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Girls are by definition children... EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Girl" has multiple definitions depending on usage, but most common uses of the term still fit within this context. Arguably better than "child" would due to how loli itself can be applied to a wide range of character age groups. 162.40.224.204 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're right, the actual definition is "In Japan, the term describes the attraction to underage girls who have just entered puberty ^{[1] [2]} or the individual who feels such attraction ^{[3] [4]}". So not merely "young girls". Could someone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.34.110.78 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In terms of sources I would take one from Academia.edu (research studies/papers) over "The Erotic Anime Movie Guide". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to McCarthy and Clements not actually supporting this claim, which I wrote about below, I checked Darling, and that source doesn't support the claim either. Nowhere in Darling does it mention "underage girls who have just entered puberty." Granted, Darling does use the phrase "prepubescent girls" (which I would add is definitionally not "girls who have just entered puberty": that phrase would indicate "pubescent") or "preteen," but he also uses the phrase "young girls," which is what this article also uses in order to account for the ambiguous scope of the definition as found in Nagayama and Galbraith 2019. Sandtalon (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A for-profit non-Japanese pop culture-specialized source? Yeah, right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.26.100 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academia.edu is only a host or repository for scholars to upload their works...if you want to look at the validity of a source on Academia.edu, you need to look at the source of the source. And in the case of the works used to support the current definition of lolicon, they are Japanese pop-culture specialized sources published by academic presses. For example, Nagayama is from Amsterdam University Press and Galbraith 2019 is from Duke University Press. (Incidentally, I have access to McCarthy and Clements, and nowhere does their chapter on lolicon actually specify an age range.) Sandtalon (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the first sentence,I believe alongside "young girls" there should be prepubescent. Even if the claims that sometimes it portrays older women were true, it is also true that often times this artsyle portrays pre-pubescent children. And so, ought to be included. Else it give the wrong impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 08:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Id imagine "young" and "young-looking" should have enough range to touch on such an area. Such anatomical features dont exactly seem like a requirement, or particularly common in popular characters and works, so specifying it in the introduction seems unnecessary. Im not sure what "wrong impression" that would give.

If you want to get into variation in the visual elements of the archtype, the definition section might be a better place to elaborate on those details. It might be good to find some resources that go over the aesthetic and design elements more. Crimsan (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are they not common or not a requirement? Especially if its meant to portray children?

Wrong impression such as, "ah young, so like 14-15. Not 8" Genabab (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theres no strict age requirement for loli characters to begin with. Ages in anime tend to be particularly nonsensical in relation to design. As the media section(and the japanese pixiv dictionary definition) point out, loli utilize secondary sexual characteristics, often to an exaggerated degree.

And id argue its "more often" rather than just "some" when you look at modern mobile games and manga designs. Many defined features found on other character body types can be found on loli in these popular works within the mediums. This is especially prevalent in animation, as most animated works need character designs to be as generalized as possible due to an excessive number of artists often working on the hand drawn animation.

The primary difference in what makes loli different from standard or larger anime girls is more their head heights than anything else. Other shapes tend to be retained for visual appeal. You wont find an actual child with the same body shape(or mannerisms) as a vast majority of loli characters. As the definition and critical commentary sections point out, the genre and community dont seem to have an interest in actual children, so why would such characters adhere to their biological or psychological development? It might be better to view loli as a "replacement" in this way rather than a depiction or representation. Crimsan (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes and no. In terms of what their "canon" age is, this may be the case. But in terms of what they are being based off of, and what must necesarily be in the artists mind when being made, is a prepubescent child. Or at least a minor.

Certain designs being exaggerated, I don't think, really changes the fundamental point (above)?

Why wouldn't it be the proportions in the figure too?

Well yes, of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't find many men that look like someone in an anime either. Because they are a cartoon. But that doesn't mean its not a depiction of a man? Genabab (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue here is that the characters features and traits itself heavily contradict the traits of a "prepubescent child". When these traits are so distinct, it shouldnt be ruled out that the creators specifically just have this archtype/trope in mind, especially when their actual features and behaviors are simply distinct from that of a child, much less a prepubescent one. Terms like "prepubescent" refers to a specific period of human development, a system and set of rules that fictional characters dont necessarily end up bound to, and neither does the creators imagination it seems. Especially when research into the history and psychology hints at a strong disconnect between the two.

I guess the difference here is asking, whats "exaggerated" and whats just something different? These "exaggerations" in proportions as well as shapes are changes seen from human development after all.

Like i said above, the figures actual features are often changed and different as well. Secondary sexual characteristics like the waist, breast definition, wider hips, leg shape are all features "borrowed" from developed figure anatomy and utilized for the figure. These are often shapes taught for figure drawing to create visual appeal, theyre shapes our eyes seek out. So it makes sense some will find these characters visually appealing because of them. There are examples of slender petite cosplayers who match many of the shapes found on the characters while being adults themselves.

Perhaps a close analogy here would be with Furries? Where the goal is something distinct in "existance" at a deep enough level that the community and culture sort of "creates" an alternate existance for their own desires and ideas? Theres also a bit of a difference between gendered descriptors and descriptors surrounding specific developmental stages as well. It just doesnt seem like a helpful descriptor with all the evidence that its seemingly not widely utilized or desired within the genre. And there doesnt seem like theres any particular benefit to this specification either, just more confusion that will arise as a reader goes further in the article. Crimsan (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"it shouldnt be ruled out that the creators specifically just have this archtype/trope in mind" I am not specifically familiar with qualifications for a character to be seen as a "loli". But in some cases artists seem to be imitating popular characters and designs from previous works, or characters that personally appealed to them. Take, Rei Ayanami for example, a popular character from the 1990s. Her distinctive design consisted of a youthful and somewhat cute appearance (but not model looks), short blue hair, stoic facial expressions and attitude. and a rare eye color. She inspired a long list of characters with similar or identical features (see this image for an example). I have seen a couple of anime series where characters resemble those in older series in both appearances and personalities. Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Theres no strict age requirement for loli characters to begin with."

There's toddlercon ages 1~3, lolicon ages 4~12, and your regular hentai and anime with schoolgirls ages 12-18+ which are definitely not lolis anymore.

Lolicon pretty much encompasses pedophilic interest (tanner stage 1 or 2) when it comes to the age range and by age I mean the portrayed age, not the mentioned 500 year old vampires'.

"You wont find an actual child with the same body shape(or mannerisms) as a vast majority of loli characters"

In 90% of the cases the only unrealistic or exaggerated body part is the big head with big eyes. When it comes to the behavior you are absolutely right though, it's the other way around.

" the genre and community dont seem to have an interest in actual children"

That's very poorly referenced and the whole subject may suffer from extreme bias due to the taboo. Zazae (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:age. We've been over this again and again on the talk page. In the 1980s, it had a broader definition, and per Nagayama, even now there may be a broader age range subsumed under "lolicon" for the Japanese public, even if not strictly within otaku culture.

And I think it's very well referenced, personally. (And I would think that the taboo would lead to bias in reliable sources in the opposite direction, if anything.) If you can find reliable sources to make the article better, though, go ahead. Sandtalon (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sundayclose - The word lolicon is 100% a portmanteau made by combining Lolita and complex. I'm confused by your edit summary saying it's not one. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look up the meaning of portmanteau. It means two words are put together to make ONE word. Lolicon is does not combine Lolita and complex into lolicon. A portmanteau of that would be lolicoM. Please cite a reliable source that lolicon is a portmanteau of Lolita and complex. Nor is Lolita complex (TWO words) a portmanteau of Lolita and complex. Sundayclose (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and made an edit about this. I concur with Sundayclose that this doesn't look like a portmanteau, it's more like an abbreviation. This is also what the JP Wikipedia says about the term. NicoSkater97 (let's talk!) 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable sources:

1: Consider, for example, that the first appearance of the words “Lolita complex” (rorīta konpurekkusu), which would be combined into the Japanese portmanteau “lolicon,” in manga was in a shōjo magazine.

2: particularly surrounding lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of ‘Lolita complex’)

Re: the "n/m" thing: this is because Japanese doesn't have an "m" phoneme in their language. "Complex" was adapted into Japanese as "konpurekkusu," but when the shortened term was brought back into English, the version with the "n" stuck.

It may actually be an "abbreviation," (though again, there are sources calling it a portmanteau), but it is absolutely derived from "Lolita complex." Sandtalon (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandtalon Thank you. @Sundayclose The Romanization of ん can be either n or m based on the following phoneme (see Japanese_phonology#Moraic_nasal). Lolicon (ロリコン) is a clipped compound.

Other RS:

• Consider, for example, that the first appearance in manga of the words "Lolita complex," which would be combined in the Japanese portmanteau lolicon, was in the magazine Bessetsu Margaret, a monthly shôjo magazine. [1]
• Much of the controversy centres around female sexuality and sexualization, particularly around lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of 'Lolita complex') or sexual attraction to prepubescent girls. [2]

EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm OK with restoring the statement about portmanteau, especially since the lead sentence also uses "lolicom" as an alternative. Thanks to all in this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]